N.MADHAVAN Vs. R.KARTHIKRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4th respondent in W. P. No. 31830 of 2018 has filed the Review Application to review the order dated 05. 03. 2019 passed in W. P. No. 31830 of 2018.

(2.) By order dated 05. 03. 2019, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, including Mrs. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition, directing the 1st respondent, the District Collector, Namakkal to proceed further pursuant to the order dated 27. 04. 2011 for taking possession of the property from the 4th respondent as expeditiously as possible. Now, the 4 th respondent has filed the above Review Application to review the order dated 05. 03. 2019 by engaging another counsel.

(3.) On a perusal of the Vakalat filed in the review application by the present counsel, it is clear that the learned counsel has filed the Vakalat without obtaining any consent for change of Vakalat from the erstwhile counsel Mr. C. Prakasam. The Vakalat bears only the signature of the review applicant, the learned counsel on record viz. , Mr. N. Subramaniyan and Mr. C. Rajapandian and also the attesting Advocate Mr. V. Kalaivannan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 755 [M. Poornachandran and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others] held that a Review Application filed by way of change of Vakalat and also without obtaining No Objection Certificate from the erstwhile counsel should not be entertained. The judgment of the Apex Court reads as follows: